Lies about lies.

Trippyhippy

est. 1981
Adventurer
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
4,152
Age
45
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
They wouldn't lie to their ppl just for the sake of feeding the industrial military complex thats been plaguing your economy and government since wwII, now would they?
 
If you think Kennedy was honest...:biggrin:

So he couldn't remember how he exactly worded it three years ago. All human memories change to put a more favorable light on what we did and said. Thus, it's very likely he really did think that's how he worded just going off memory. Its really pointless because if someone wants to know what he said they should just look it up instead of asking him again three years later. Also, wasn't lies in 2003 if he is simply going off what his intelligence men give him.

Do we really want another discussion on Iraq?
They wouldn't lie to their ppl just for the sake of feeding the industrial military complex thats been plaguing your economy and government since wwII, now would they?
Yeah, because that spending really boosts the approvoal rating and is a smart thing for presidents to do to be popular. :wacko: If you really think that's the reason, just don't even bother saying more.
 
Trippyhippy said:

How could you not mention Benjamin Franklin or our other presidents during the 16th and 17th centurys?

Kennedy became a honest guy at the end but he wasn't the whole time. I don't think Clinton was that bad either for one reason and one reason only. He refused to sign and pass the original version of the Patriot Act.

Rones -

I've been reading your posts and links in the previous thread and I'll bring some of them up in my new thread I'm going to work on soon. I'll do my best to bring up plenty of reliable evidence, credible resources, and pure factual information in order to start a good debate. I'll keep theorys to a bare minimum but I won't stop myself from mentioning my own opinions but I'll state that it's an opinion beforehand and not just state it as true like many people do.

It's not going to focus on 9/11 cover-ups but things that have been happening all around the world for the past 60+ years. I will focus more on present events so 9/11 will be brought up more than old history. Thanks for properly debating in the past. You answered questions and showed credable information to back up your answers and statements. You didn't directly attack anyone with insults unless you were defending yourself. I respect that. I look forward to our future discussions and debates.
 
Last edited:
Trippyhippy said:
Remind me again, who was the last honest politician? Wasn't it Kennedy? Yeah we shot him in the head. Then there was Honest Abe... We shot him in the head too.

Kennedy wasn't honest at all buddy. In fact one of the most amazing things about him was how exceptional of a liar he was. Ridiculously good at it. I can't stand dishonesty, but I find myself respecting his sheer ability due to how awesome it was.

But the funny thing is that the least deserving politicians (Lincoln definately deserved it though, suspending constitutional rights is NEVER acceptable) seem to be getting shot. The more corrupt politicians should fear armed citizen reprisals much more, but somehow they're able to stay alive. SS protection is so good, that the only way any assassination could occur anymore is if it was from an exceptionally co-ordinated group, with inside help.
 
Bustaballs said:
I don't think Clinton was that bad either for one reason and one reason only. He refused to sign and pass the original version of the Patriot Act.

Unfortuanately he did expand the police powers of many government agencies dramatically and he pass some very constitutionally questionable acts. It's disgusting how these assholes treat the constitution. Politicians however violate the spirit of the constitution, but not the law via loopholes. Also Janet Reno was his attorney generals. Among many disgusting things she was responsible for, Waco has always been the one that makes my blood boil.
 
billytibbetts said:
Unfortuanately he did expand the police powers of many government agencies dramatically and he pass some very constitutionally questionable acts. It's disgusting how these assholes treat the constitution. Politicians however violate the spirit of the constitution, but not the law via loopholes. Also Janet Reno was his attorney generals. Among many disgusting things she was responsible for, Waco has always been the one that makes my blood boil.

I'll mention all of that as well. In fact, it's probably my main focus. The destuction of the US Constitution. Although I said I'd mention things dating back to WWII, my own personal research seperate from the general topics I've been researching lately proves that act of the government doing things against the constitution temporarily dates back to the late 1800s and things where they have been detroying the constitution and keeping it that way dates back to 1917 during WWI. I'll release that information now.

Limiting the freedom of the press:

http://www.thebookstandard.com/book...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001181785

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books

Limiting the freedom of speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Last edited:
Rones said:
Yeah, because that spending really boosts the approvoal rating and is a smart thing for presidents to do to be popular.
We are in the second term, approval ratings are pretty meaningless at this point. In fact, one could argue that a low approval rating of Dubya is actually good for Republicans. How so? Clearly the current course can not be sustained indefinitely, blaming someone (Castro, Osama, Hussain, Dubya) will come in handy, and it will be easier to distance oneself from the current policy and steer a new course if the current approval ratings are low.

Low approval basically means that the people believe just about anyone, including another Republican, could do better than the current administration.

On a side note as to which prez was best, I am not sure, Washington was sure awesome if you can believe all that was written about him, Kennedy handled Cuba and Marilyn outstandingly in my book, and Clinton is my modern day hero because I believe that Presidents should be able to get BJs in the Oval Office without that anyone gets on their case about it. Whether or not I approve of extramartial BJs is not the issue, the issue is that things that are done in the Oval Office should stay in the Oval Office, no exceptions.
 
Rones said:
Yeah, because that spending really boosts the approvoal rating and is a smart thing for presidents to do to be popular. :wacko: If you really think that's the reason, just don't even bother saying more.

Because Presidents go to war to be popular, of course :wacko:
Because everything Presidents do is for approval rating :wacko:

They don't mind doing things that seem wrong in the aftermath as long as their communication advisors do their job well and put the focus on another pretended problem when it is time to vote.

I think you're living in a dream world where democracy is the funding of our western countries. Not withstanding the industrial military complex, the major international holdings have gained a weight never seen before upon politics on a global scale. I'm not poping these things outta my ass, these were the words of former CEO of holdings speaking in a documentary broadcasted in france a week ago.
 
I'll get into all of that. Let me finish up some more research and I'll begin begin writing up something.
 
Rones said:
If you think Kennedy was honest...:biggrin:

Honest as in "not for sale" honest. Ya know like every single politician on capital hill.

So he couldn't remember how he exactly worded it three years ago. All human memories change to put a more favorable light on what we did and said. Thus, it's very likely he really did think that's how he worded just going off memory. Its really pointless because if someone wants to know what he said they should just look it up instead of asking him again three years later. Also, wasn't lies in 2003 if he is simply going off what his intelligence men give him.

Wording doesn't enter into it. 3 years ago, he said we knew where they were. It was the basis on which we went to war. Now he says we never knew where they where, we only suspected. Would the nation be so willing to go to war if they thought they were suspect sites and not solid information?

Do we really want another discussion on Iraq?

I'd rather discuss presidents and approval ratings now that ya bring it up. Check this out. The numbers are interesting, I still don't know why reagan ranked so high on peoples list. I thought it was funny that Clintons approval rating soared after he got impeached for gettin some head.

Yeah, because that spending really boosts the approvoal rating and is a smart thing for presidents to do to be popular. :wacko: If you really think that's the reason, just don't even bother saying more.

This would be something to consider if his approval rating had been over 50% in the last year. It doesn't seem to me that the administration is too worried over GWBs approval rating.

Bustaballs said:
How could you not mention Benjamin Franklin or our other presidents during the 16th and 17th centurys?

The way you wrote that makes me think you are suggesting franklin was a president...

As far as 16th and 17th century, I don't really know much about it. I slept through U.S. History in high school. My teacher was hardcore right wing and the leader of the FCA at our school. He didn't like me at all.

Now my economics and Government classes, I remember those quite clearly :-)

Kennedy became a honest guy at the end but he wasn't the whole time. I don't think Clinton was that bad either for one reason and one reason only. He refused to sign and pass the original version of the Patriot Act.

Clintons administration did a lot of good things for this country. Like not start a full scale war. Balance the Budget. Ban Assualt weapons. His administration did a lot of bad things too. Like Waco, as someone already mentioned. Then there was that episode in Somalia in 1993 with the Black Hawk Helicopters and about 20 soldiers being lost/killed. Then there was the whitewater Scandal, where nothing was ever proven, but the actions are still questionable.

I'll mention all of that as well. In fact, it's probably my main focus. The destuction of the US Constitution. Although I said I'd mention things dating back to WWII, my own personal research seperate from the general topics I've been researching lately proves that act of the government doing things against the constitution temporarily dates back to the late 1800s and things where they have been detroying the constitution and keeping it that way dates back to 1917 during WWI. I'll release that information now.

The press as a whole has no particular Bias and says pretty much whatever will get ratings.

People who say there is no Right wing press, I give Fox News, The New York Post, the Wall Street Journal.

People who say there is no Left wing press, I give you CNN, the new york times, The washington Post.

The truth is the News is all partisan, but there is strong bias both ways depending on where ya look. The problem is the news is no longer reporting news, they are trying to entertain and sensationalize.

I don't feel censorship is a problem anymore and hasn't been in a great many years.
 
Farys said:
They wouldn't lie to their ppl just for the sake of feeding the industrial military complex thats been plaguing your economy and government since wwII, now would they?

It's been going on for much longer than wwII.
 
You know, by the way, no president has been completely honest, not even Honest Abe. Lying, unfortunately, is a big political tool since the dawn of the freedom of the U.S. Honesty is definitely a virtue, but not a must anymore. Kennedy did lie, exceptionally well. But people still loved him. And the fact is, people attack Bush's service in the service for his country, and saying he went awall. Whether or not this is true, here are some interesting facts I got from my uncle (A hardcore democratic Vietnam/Somalia veteran)

Kerry didn't deserve all the purple hearts he recieved. A purple heart is supposed to be recieved when wounded in combat, not peace time in battle. One of Kerry's hearts, was inflicted during a peace time naval operation in Vietnam.

McCain, a popular politician, was detained for 7 years by the North Vietnamese. During that time, he cracked with information about U.S operations allegedly. Now, with torture in all, many people would crack, but the fact that he cracked and leaked information is fowl (I don't hate the guy, Hell, I think he should be the next flippin president, fureel fureel)

People avoided drafts in mulitple wars by fleeing to Canada. Yea, they recieved amnesty. Yea, they were allowed back in. But by all that is right, they let down all the men that died because they'd rather fight for their country than flee like mice. And by the way, people could avoid the draft by becoming a worker at a hospital, or a worker for the government. So don't go on about them being forced.

Bush allegedly went awall in his service. (I hate Bush with a burning passion, but I am all for thr truth). And actually, I believe Fox News to be somewhat baised because a family member of Pres. Bush runs the damn program. Bush also bypassed Congress by saying 9/11 was a declaration of war, and sent troops to Afghanistan. The majority supported Afghanistan. Then Pres. Bush sent men to Iraq. (HUGE mistake). But we cannot argue about the reasons for Iraq. We cannot say the men and women have died for no reason. And if you do, get a damn life and move to Canada. Now, I may be a little baised, for I have lost a friend in Iraq, and two of my cousins are over there, but we need to focus on getting them back, not Pres. Bush's motives.

Wording doesn't enter into it. 3 years ago, he said we knew where they were. It was the basis on which we went to war. Now he says we never knew where they where, we only suspected. Would the nation be so willing to go to war if they thought they were suspect sites and not solid information?

This is very true. Pres. Bush's inteligence reported that there were WMD's in Iraq, not the capablility, which was indeed there. But if every conflict started because of suspiscion, we would all be dead. Iraq, however, would have been a conflict regardless of the way the U.S looked at it. Hussein was commiting genocide, and was allegedly alligning with Iran. Note the word allegedly... thank you. People say we should've gone into Iran. We had no motive, or right to. Iraq, there was atleast suspiscion. In Iran, we knew they were there, but then the U.S would've been screwed over because of the U.N

And you can't blame Pres. Bush for the situation in Iraq. People are supposed to clean their messes if they make one. The U.S f***king put Hussein to power, initially because he was the better candidate in Iraq (whoa, were we wrong). Hence the Gulf War. That didn't work, so he are obligated to clean up the mess the U.S made. And with Usama, the U.S supplied him with money. Another mess we need to clean up.


Originally Posted by Farys
They wouldn't lie to their ppl just for the sake of feeding the industrial military complex thats been plaguing your economy and government since wwII, now would they?

Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Sioux Wars, Creek Indian Wars. Those plagued the economies, because people wanted more and more land. Land = money = power, was pretty much the logic back then. We took the land from the Hispanics and the Native Americans, and did little to pay back for the wars and slaughter, especially to the Native Americans.
 
Last edited:
Torqameda said:
But we cannot argue about the reasons for Iraq.

Why?

Torqameda said:
We cannot say the men and women have died for no reason. And if you do, get a damn life and move to Canada.

It has nothing to do with treason or un-patriotism. As hard and depressing as it seems, every single minute on the globe, ppl die for no reason.
Admitting that ppl may have died for no Greater Cause is hard to accept because we all want to give a meaning to those we've lost. We want to say that they didn't die in vain, that their life was something else than a name in an obituary or on a tag (I'm not talking exclusively of soldiers).

Torqameda said:
Now, I may be a little baised, for I have lost a friend in Iraq, and two of my cousins are over there, but we need to focus on getting them back, not Pres. Bush's motives.

You're right, do not focus on Bush's motives, that way it's gonna get easier for him to claim votes and approval next time around. The best thing you could do to honour your departed friends and family is to make it so it won't happen again.

Torqameda said:
This is very true. Pres. Bush's inteligence reported that there were WMD's in Iraq, not the capablility, which was indeed there. But if every conflict started because of suspiscion, we would all be dead.

It's not a question of suspicion, it's just a question of "what lie can we feed our ppl with so they'll back us for oil control in the gulf, for our new military tests and for justifying all those millions spent on bombs, soldiers training and mercenaries recruitment?".

I hate to get angry but :
THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ. THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ.
All reports stated it. All satellite screenies proved it. The only one report your gvt used as piece of evidence was written by an english agent who commited suicide. As of today, still no wmd have been found (bleach and fertilizers in ppl basement don't count).
But somehow they're still lying to you saying "maybe they're over there" "or maybe behind that hill" because you (and it has been made very clear with your need to give a meaning to your friend's death) want to believe it to be true. You don't want to acknowledge your friends and family died for no Greater Cause of Justice and Territory Defense or 9/11 strikeback.

Your country, better than anyother else, should have already known that you cant fight Terrorism with ten thousands bombs, 2 millions soldiers and 50 F117. We, and later on, the US failed to get control over Vietnam.
Remember Vietnam? You've been pulled into this mess not because France's army are cowards or losers (it helps your soldiers war-penis to think so :rolleyes:) but because your governement, once again, lied to you with this fake story of Tonkin bay.


Torqameda said:
Iraq, however, would have been a conflict regardless of the way the U.S looked at it. Hussein was commiting genocide, and was allegedly alligning with Iran. Note the word allegedly... thank you. People say we should've gone into Iran. We had no motive, or right to. Iraq, there was atleast suspiscion. In Iran, we knew they were there, but then the U.S would've been screwed over because of the U.N.

The U.N. did its best to prevent your invasion of Iran territory but still you went. You have as much motive to go to Iran as to go to Iraq. And I'd say you have even more motives to go for Iran if you want motives in the "they're mean to us, they want bad things to happen to us" department.

Torqameda said:
And you can't blame Pres. Bush for the situation in Iraq. People are supposed to clean their messes if they make one. The U.S f***king put Hussein to power, initially because he was the better candidate in Iraq (whoa, were we wrong). Hence the Gulf War. That didn't work, so he are obligated to clean up the mess the U.S made. And with Usama, the U.S supplied him with money. Another mess we need to clean up.

Thats called "cleaning your left hand with your right hand".

Torqameda said:
Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Sioux Wars, Creek Indian Wars. Those plagued the economies, because people wanted more and more land. Land = money = power, was pretty much the logic back then. We took the land from the Hispanics and the Native Americans, and did little to pay back for the wars and slaughter, especially to the Native Americans.

Land is not an industry with shareholders that want return on their investments every semester and shares that weights on the Stock Exchange.
 
Back
Top